CNN: Obama Administration Using These Gruesome Videos of Alleged Chemical Attack to Guilt America into Military Action Against Assad & Syrian

As reported at CNN, the Obama Administration is using gruesome and disturbing videos of the aftermath of a chemical attack against the Syrian people by Syrian President Assad. But how is this any different than being told that a chemical attack occurred? It’s more of the same play on emotional, rather than telling us, “We the People” and Congress, what is the reason why there needs to be US involvement in a Syrian civil war. Of course this is heinous, but there are many things that occur in this world that are heinous that the US does nothing about. Sec. of State John Kerry had stated regarding Syria, ‘Not the Time to Be Silent Spectators to Slaughter’.  So let’s understand this, the first 100,000 people killed in Syria, that was OK to be a silent spectator, but now that chemical weapons were used, that is different? Really?

Barack Obama, John Kerry, et all have still failed to explain how this was against US national security.

I still do not know how Obama could draw a “red line” yet have nothing in place so if one went over that line, retaliation would occur. You don’t make such claims and ultimatums if you have butkis. This rodeo clown is so used to playing politics with his rhetoric against the GOP, that he has no concept how to act as a leader on world events. Instead, he folded like a house of cards and showed he has zero leadership skills.

These are some of the hard-to-stomach images that the Obama administration has shown a select group of senators in closed-door briefings to make the case that a limited military attack on Syria is justified.

CNN was the first to obtain the 13 different videos seen by members of the Senate Intelligence Committee that depict the gruesome scene of an chemical weapons attack in Syria on August 21. The administration told senators that their authenticity was verified by the intelligence community.

The attack, allegedly carried out by Syrian forces under President Bashar al-Assad, has touched off the most critical foreign policy question since the uprising began in 2011: Is a military response merited?

Video Warning – Disturbing in nature

As the anniversary of 9-11 is nearly upon us and the one year anniversary of the Benghazi terror attack, Obama’s greatest obstacle is how does he justify attacking Assad that will benefit the Al-Qaeda infested Syrian government opposition, when we have supposedly been at war with these terrorists for 12 years? Sorry, but how does the United States act in any military fashion that would aid Al-Qaeda?

Vote Count Shows that President Barack Obama Could Lose Big on Military Strike in Syria in House

President Barack Obama is about to lose a historic vote on military force in Syria in a huge way …

The Politico is reporting that Barack Obama is about to lose big in the House of Representatives on a resolution for a military strike on Syria. Obama never had any intention of taking this before Congress, but when the Parliament voted down war in Britain and the polls were so overwhelmingly negative against the war, he had no choice.  Obama has failed to make the case for war to either the International community or the American people. Hell, he can’t even convince individuals in his own party to support this involvement that is nothing more than a Syrian civil war. The American people understand that Syrian president Assad is an evil man, but an attack on him is support for Al-Qaeda. As Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) has previously stated, the United States is not ‘Al Qaeda’s air force’.  How could anyone support that?

Go to The Other McCain and read an interesting article of the lib’s recent epiphany that Obama really isn’t the Obamamessiah after all … he was not they one that they had been waiting for after all. If and when this measure fails in Congress, Obama will not be able to blame Republicans as it will be the Democrats who vote no to a military strike in Syria.

If the House voted today on a resolution to attack Syria, President Barack Obama would lose — and lose big.

That’s the private assessment of House Republican and Democratic lawmakers and aides who are closely involved in the process.

If the Senate passes a use-of-force resolution next week — which is no sure thing — the current dynamics suggest that the House would defeat it. That would represent a dramatic failure for Obama, and once again prove that his sway over Congress is extraordinarily limited. The loss would have serious reverberations throughout the next three months, when Obama faces off against Congress in a series of high-stakes fiscal battles.

Several Republican leadership aides, who are counting votes but not encouraging a position, say that there are roughly one to two dozen “yes” votes in favor of military action at this time. The stunningly low number is expected to grow a bit.

But senior aides say they expect, at most, between 50 and 60 Republicans to vote with Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), who support the president’s plan to bomb Syria to stop Bashar Assad from using chemical weapons on his people. That would amount to less than one-third of the House Republican Conference.

That would mean the vast majority of the 200 House Democrats will need to vote with Obama for the resolution to pass. But Democrats privately say that Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) can only round up between 115 and 130 “yes” votes.

Oh to be a fly on the wall for Obama-Putin 15 second chat.

Pew Research Poll: 48% of Americans Against Military Strike against Syria, Only 29% Support It, 48% Against … ABC/WAPO Poll: 36% For, 59% Against

America has finally reached a bipartisan consensus, they are against Obama’s actions of wanting a military strike against Syria …

A PEW Research poll shows that Barack Obama, John Kerry, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the new found Democrat military hawks have little support among the American people with regards to a military action against Syria for Assad’s use of chemical weapons against his people. According to the poll, 48% of Americans are against military action, while only  a meager 29% support it. The numbers against any military action against Syria are negative for Obama across party lines. Finally we have bi-partisan agreement, (Democrats: pro 29% – against 48%) … (Republicans: pro 35% – against 40%) … (Independents: pro 29%, against 50%).

But does Obama care what “We the People” think? Hardly, look how we got Obamacare rammed down our throats. Remember the lies were were told about that as well when the “Campaigner” in Chief misrepresented that as well? Most Americans understand that the using of chemical weapons is hideous, but how is it different from the 100′s of thousands of people previously killed in this Syrian civil war? They also understand that with a “chicken hawk” like Obama at the reigns, an attack on Assad and taking out his military and infrastructure would only allow Al-Qaeda to swoop in to power. So why doesn’t Obama, or does he?

President Obama faces an uphill battle in making the case for U.S. military action in Syria. By a 48% to 29% margin, more Americans oppose than support conducting military airstrikes against Syria in response to reports that the Syrian government used chemical weapons.

The new national survey by the Pew Research Center, conducted Aug. 29-Sept. 1 among 1,000 adults, finds that Obama has significant ground to make up in his own party. Just 29% of Democrats favor conducting airstrikes against Syria while 48% are opposed. Opinion among independents is similar (29% favor, 50% oppose). Republicans are more divided, with 35% favoring airstrikes and 40% opposed.

The military action is resoundingly looked upon by Americans as doing little good and in fact making matters much worse in the Middle East. A whopping 74% believe that U.S. airstrikes in Syria are likely to create a backlash against the United States and its allies in the region. Gee, ya think? Barack Obama claims that GITMO is a vehicle for terrorist recruitment, um, what the hell does he think a solo US strike with no, none, nada collation would do? Another 61% of Americans think that such a military action could lead to a long term military action in Syria.

CNN also is reporting that another national poll, an ABC News/Washington Post survey shows that only 36% of the public supports launching missile strikes against the forces of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad if the U.S. has determined that Damascus has used chemical weapons against its own citizens. 59% of Americans oppose military action.

Nearly six in 10 Americans in a new ABC News/Washington Post poll oppose unilateral U.S. missile strikes against Syria, and even more oppose arming the Syrian rebels – a complication for Barack Obama and proponents of military action in Congress alike.

Even given the United States’ assertion that the Syrian government used chemical weapons in the civil war there, 59 percent in the national survey, conducted Wednesday through Sunday, oppose U.S. missile strikes, far more than the 36 percent who support them.

The American people have lost trust in Obama and his foreign policy because frankly, he has none. Obama’s vision has worked so well in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and now Syria.

40,000 Members of the International Longshore & Warehouse Union (ILWU) Quit the AFL-CIO Citing Obamacare … Growing Frustration With Obamacare

Trouble in Union paradise because of Obamacare.

The 40,000 members of the ILWU, International Longshore & Warehouse Union, have quit the AFL-CIO citing Obamacare and immigration reform. The ILWU sent a letter to AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka providing grievances, namely the AFL-CIO’s support of Obamacare. The letter stated that,  ”We feel the Federation has done a great disservice to the labor movement and all working people by going along to get along.” Gee, ya think? The ILWU is also upset with the AFL-CIO fot their going along with Obama’s confiscatory tax on their “Cadillac” health care plans after Obama ran on a platform in 2009 saying that he would not do so. Even unions are now upset with Obama’s misrepresentations with Obamacare. What Obama lie, say it isn’t so.

In what is being reported as a surprise move, the 40,000 members of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) announced that they have formally ended their association with the AFL-CIO, one of the nation’s largest private sector unions. The Longshoremen citied Obamacare and immigration reform as two important causes of their disaffiliation.

In an August 29 letter to AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, ILWU President Robert McEllrath cited quite a list of grievances as reasons for the disillusion of their affiliation, but prominent among them was the AFL-CIO’s support of Obamare.

“We feel the Federation has done a great disservice to the labor movement and all working people by going along to get along,” McEllrath wrote in the letter to Trumka.

The ILWU President made it clear they are for a single-payer, nationalized healthcare policy and are upset with the AFL-CIO for going along with Obama on the confiscatory tax on their “Cadillac” healthcare plan.

UPDATE I: The Hill – Unions are frustrated the Obama administration hasn’t responded to their calls for changes to ObamaCare.

Unions are frustrated the Obama administration hasn’t responded to their calls for changes to ObamaCare.

Labor has watched with growing annoyance as the White House has backed ObamaCare changes in response to concerns from business groups, religious organizations and even lawmakers and their staffs.

They say they don’t understand why their concerns so far have fallen of deaf ears.

We are disappointed that the non-profit health plans offered by unions have not been given the same consideration as the Catholic Church, big business and Capitol Hill staffers,” Unite Here President D. Taylor told The Hill.

It’s an issue that Obama may have to face when he speaks to the AFL-CIO convention a week after Labor Day.

Charles Krauthammer Slams Obama … “It’s Amateur Hour” … “Obama Boxed Himself into a Corner and Now He’s Looking for a Out

Barack Obama, the Amateur in Chief …

Charles Krauthammer ripped President Barack Obama a new one in his analysis following Obama’s Rose Garden presser this after noon where he said he would wait until Congress comes back from vacation on September 9th and ask for approval to strike Syria. Krauthammer called it “AMATEUR HOUR” in the White House. Well, it’s been that for 5 years and counting.  Krauthammer was most astonished by the speech was the “lack of any urgency” Obama and his minions have been railing that the attack on Syria had to be immediate, even before any one was sure who actually was responsible for the gas attack.

“But the idea that you make the case, you leak the details, you tell the world that this has to be done and then you say, Well, I will take my time. I’ll go to Congress and we’ll see. This should be done in three days.”

Looks like the UK Telegraph agrees with Charles Krauthammer: Barack Obama is proving an embarrassing amateur on the world stage compared to George W. Bush.

From The Daily Caller:

Krauthammer criticized Obama for the way he has handled the unfolding of events surrounding the crisis in Syria.

“[T]he most astonishing thing is the lack of any urgency,” Krauthammer said. “As you say, Congress will be back in a week. He says, ‘I can strike in a day or a week or a month,’ as if he is a judge handing down a sentence and the execution can be any time in the future. There is a war going on. Do you think everybody is going to hold their breath, hold their arms, step aside until Obama decides when he wants to go to Congress?

“Look, I think he should go to Congress,” he continued. “I think it is absolutely necessary. But he has done no preparation. What they should have done — I mean, this is sort of amateur hour. When there were the first attacks six months ago or if you like, when we had the current attacks, he should have immediately have called in the Congress the way the prime minister of Britain had called in the parliament, had a debate and got a resolution and then went out and told the world we are going do x or we are not going to do x.”